a strong trendp = 0.0835
84.3 ± 11.731 fL, p < 0.0001, Figure 5 a) and a strong trend towards higher HbF percentages (16.7 ± 9.89% vs. 13.9 ± 8.04%, p = 0.0835, Figure 5 b) compared to slow absorption (T max ≥ 1 h).
84.3 ± 11.731 fL, p < 0.0001, Figure 5 a) and a strong trend towards higher HbF percentages (16.7 ± 9.89% vs. 13.9 ± 8.04%, p = 0.0835, Figure 5 b) compared to slow absorption (T max ≥ 1 h).
Regarding total drug exposure, a trend toward higher AUC values was observed in rapid absorbers compared to slow absorbers, although this difference did not reach statistical significance, consistent with previously published data.
Total exposure also showed a significant trend toward higher values in rapid profiles compared to slow profiles, although the difference was not statistically significant ( p = 0.0699 and p = 0.1756 for the AUC 0–6h and AUC inf , respectively) ( Figure 1 d,e).